10nm between the A380 and any a/c following it on approach.
1 additional minute added on for departure spacing following an A380 departure
Minimum of 15nm radar seperation for all other phases of flight for an A380 and any other a/c at the same altititude of 1500ft below.
Overall, those who said the A380 would need the same amount of spacing as a B747 are absolutely wrong. A380 spacing nearly double that of the B747.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2915 times:
Nothing new. CAA was just following ICAO which made the same recommendation a few weeks back. Also it clearly states in the ATSIN the aircraft is in development and that this spacing recommendation is not permanent. Please don't take sentences out of context or blow it out of proportion.
Gkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, RR: 58 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2895 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 1): Also it clearly states in the ATSIN the aircraft is in development and that this spacing recommendation is not permanent.
Which could mean it will be less or will be even more. Or it could just stay the way it is.
However, if it remains as the CAA have suggested, then the A380 will actually add to the congestion at airports such as LHR instead of reducing it. Thats the way I interprate the document, before anyone calls me anti Airbus or whatever
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2812 times:
As far as Heathrow is concern it may not be as big a problem people are suggesting. Remember it runs in segregated mode. The IC can keep it low on downwind out of the way of others and the FD can TEAM it on to the departure runway. Problem solved. Nimby complaints start flooding in.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9084 posts, RR: 37 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2739 times:
Quoting Gkirk (Reply 5): P.S. Does anyone have a link to the ICAO recommendations?
I have a copy of the letter, but it isn't 'postable', it''s not from a website.
However I can confirm that the CAA's wording is the same as the ICAO's except in the matter of vertical spacing. The ICAO only recommended 'offset tracks' or 'additional vertical spacing' over the normal 1,000 ft., without specifying an amount. The CAA says 1,500 ft.
Both documents say that the whole matter is subject to a final determination later this year.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2672 times:
Quoting Gkirk (Reply 8): changing that to dual ops mode
The final timing has not been decided yet. It should happen in 2-3 years' time.
For each 10Nm spacing pair you lose 4 arrivals slots in segregated mode unless you TEAM but you lose nothing in mixed mode because you can shoot more than 1 (probably 2-3) departures in the 10Nm gap. Some clever departure sequencing required.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2595 times:
It is just preliminary stuff. The 747 had similar directives when it was being tested, but eventually the minimums were revised in line with operational experience.
Worth noting too that initial data was done using the unmodified A380 wing which had a turbulence problem affecting the rear stabiliser. Redesigning the canoes and associated surfaces deals with that problem, and will additionally reduce further the wake turbulence the wing produces.
Glacote From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2401 times:
Quoting Gkirk (Thread starter): Overall, those who said the A380 would need the same amount of spacing as a B747 are absolutely wrong. A380 spacing nearly double that of the B747.
And those who jump on anything that can be used to bash the A380 still make fool of themselves.
Nice try - but instead of serving perished and already debunked FUD please bak up your claims with facts next time.
Gkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, RR: 58 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
Quoting Glacote (Reply 12): Nice try - but instead of serving perished and already debunked FUD please bak up your claims with facts next time.
The figures in the CAA, although they may not be the final figures, prove that this isn't rubbish, so I suggest you stop trying to start an A vs B fight.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2284 times:
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7): As far as Heathrow is concern it may not be as big a problem people are suggesting. Remember it runs in segregated mode. The IC can keep it low on downwind out of the way of others and the FD can TEAM it on to the departure runway. Problem solved. Nimby complaints start flooding in.
Problem solved? Hardly. You see, if it takes special ops to make it not delay anything, then it's a solution, yes, but you could apply that solution to OTHER jets, and their effective spacing also drops. You aren't making the A380 like other jets in this regard, you're just finding a way to make it not worse, but from this solution, it seems LHR would be better off doing this for ALL operations, as it would free up more coveted landing and takeoff slots at premium times of day.
So, why aren't they doing it already? Is it a matter of noise? If so, the A380 is quiet, so it shouldn't be a problem, but the other jets shifted around might, no?
It'll be interesting to see if Airbus lobbies for 10nm spacing during the testing of the 748. Just to make it fair.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 9): Both documents say that the whole matter is subject to a final determination later this year.
That was the important part from day 1.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 118 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6439 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9084 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, 
From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! 
, 21029 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
